this forum is not for me. it's mostly religious creationist here and it goes round in circles, iv pretty much seen what i wanted to. i presented my alternative to darwinism/creationism on one thread & i have explained in another what my beliefs are, which would probably be called heretical or devil worship by most christians, i never understood why contacting the dead is asin??. what you want to think of that is up to you. i have no plans in ever converting to a christian or a creationist i dislike them very much, atleast i am honest about this, but i also dislike darwinism. i respect this forum for atleast giving some resistance to darwins theories. enjoy the debate, but i want out. thank you.

this forum is not for me. it's mostly religious creationist here and it goes round in circles, iv pretty much seen what i wanted to. i presented my alternative to darwinism/creationism on one thread & i have explained in another what my beliefs are, which would probably be called heretical or devil worship by most christians, i never understood why contacting the dead is asin??. what you want to think of that is up to you. i have no plans in ever converting to a christian or a creationist i dislike them very much, atleast i am honest about this, but i also dislike darwinism. i respect this forum for atleast giving some resistance to darwins theories. enjoy the debate, but i want out. thank you.

good luck with your forum and whatever your beliefs are.

shadow.

LOL, I guess when the water gets to hot for you, you bail out.

It's funny that the only reason you dislike us is because evolution teaches you to. It's a Hitler mentality. But you could stay and prove me wrong.

One more thing. Since you dislike us and would never become one of us. Maybe you can do this challenge.

It's something you can do that will ensure that you will never be saved. If you are so sure of yourself, you should not have any problems meeting the challenge. I'll give you 7 days to respond. If not I will delete this thread and your account.

I am always amazed when someone publically proclaims that they want their account closed, when they have the power to simply not post anymore (its much like the end of the Wizard of Oz when Glenda tells Dorothy that she always had the power to go home) . This begs the question then Ã¢â‚¬Å“why be so dramatic when you are simply planning on leaving?Ã¢â‚¬Â Why not simply leave! Unless, of course, there is an ulterior motive in presenting publically such dramaÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

this forum is not for me.

It rarely ever is for those who cannot sustain logical or evidentiary substantiation for their assertions. Especially when they have to adhere to forum rules to do so. But most folks, when they find out that their fallacious argumentation will be exposed, decide to get themselves banned so they have excuses when they return to their regular forums. Still, a few get dramatic and publically announce Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m quitting because no one will listen to me, and agree with me, regardless of how little evidence I have for my view-pointÃ¢â‚¬Â.

it's mostly religious creationist here and it goes round in circles, iv pretty much seen what i wanted to.

You proved yourself to be just as religious (if not more) than anyone else here. And the tautologies and question begging assertions youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve posted here have shown many that you have a great command on circuitous argumentation as well. Which further begs the question: Why be so dramatic in your exit, with your accusation of others by claiming that they are doing what you yourself have repeatedly done here?

i presented my alternative to darwinism/creationism on one thread & i have explained in another what my beliefs are, which would probably be called heretical or devil worship by most christians,

What you are missing here, is that you have postulated nothing more than beliefs (aka FAITH) here, and then got your feelings hurt when they were exposed as nothing more than faith. You also fail to realize that no one here has a problem with your faith-statements; the only problem is when you attempt to pass your faith off as facts. Further, you can believe in your religion all you want, just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be hurt when no one wants to convert to it.

i never understood why contacting the dead is asin??.

Once again, have you forgotten where you are? This is a Christian site! Of course contacting the dead is a sin. The issue here is: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why are you having a problem with that?Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why all the DRAMA?Ã¢â‚¬Â Really, are you so obtuse?

what you want to think of that is up to you.

Exactly! And what you cannot provide evidence for is of Ã¢â‚¬Å“FAITHÃ¢â‚¬Â. And what you want to believe in is up to you!

i have no plans in ever converting to a christian or a creationist i dislike them very much,

And, obviously no one here had shown the propensity to convert to your brand of religion. Why are you having a problem with that?

atleast i am honest about this,

I have some doubt about your honesty, and can base much of my opinion on this post alone.

but i also dislike darwinism.

And that is your prerogative, as it is mine. But you have totally failed to make a case other than you religiously believe in your faith statements.

i respect this forum for atleast giving some resistance to darwins theories. enjoy the debate, but i want out. thank you.

this forum is not for me. it's mostly religious creationist here and it goes round in circles, iv pretty much seen what i wanted to. i presented my alternative to darwinism/creationism on one thread & i have explained in another what my beliefs are, which would probably be called heretical or devil worship by most christians, i never understood why contacting the dead is a sin??

You contact the dead yet deny the existence of God as a Spirit? Perhaps by contacting the dead you have given up your free will. They are blinding you. Remove your veil and see God.

Look at science, western and eastern and tell me that men do not have a spirit. Tell me that all that exists is something one can see with their eyes. What is this Chi that Eastern medicine is so concerned with? Can you see someone's life force? I guess to a blind man nothing exists at all. Maybe it is easier for a blind man to find God.

You are mistaken, we do not merely play with words.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

God is a Spirit. We must worship Him in Spirit. I know where He is because He has shown me. He has shown me because I accepted His Son.

A controlling and fear mongering cult frightened me away from God the Father. But something kept me looking. I looked at the life of Christ. Saw the history written about Him. Unlimited in power, perfect in justice and humility and love. How could I not accept His free gift?

I am not doing this challenge it says you have to make a youtube video of yourself and paste it online, well I do not have a camera or youtube account. You seem to think people are scared of what is written in the bible, i have already told you I have never read the bible it does not interest me, and from what I have seen and heard most of the bible is most likely taken from other sources, i do not consider it to be divine or complete historic truth of life on earth or "gods word". if any sect of christianity is true it would be gnosticism which predates the bible. i do not believe a "holy spirit" exists, there is no such thing as "holy", as explained i believe people and animals have spirits, but theres no "holy spirit" from a book, the bible is based on belief, spirits not about belief. Theres also no evidence the events in the bible actually happened on earth. New agers have worked this out and they give the stuff from the bible a spiritual and not physical meaning.

You proved yourself to be just as religious (if not more) than anyone else here.

im not religious, what i explained in some of my posts on this forum - is that panspermia has evidence (yes not very much though currently! it is a rather vague hypothesis still) and that the mystery of life on earth has not been solved by science (it hasnt!), and that darwinism and creationism are both dogmatic as eachother (they are!!). I also admitted evidence for common descent is lacking (it pretty much is!!).

What you are missing here, is that you have postulated nothing more than beliefs (aka FAITH) here, and then got your feelings hurt when they were exposed as nothing more than faith

not put much (if any!) faith on this forum at all. i have admitted:

1. The universe is eternal and this is why the christian god does most likely not exist - do you want to know why this is not faith??? this is becuase Plasma is almost everywhere. At least ninety-nine percent of the known universe is, in fact, matter in its plasma state! plasma is a state of matter very similar to gas - it can neither be created nor destroyed!! this is why the universe was never created!! and why there was no start called the big bang. did the christian god create the universe?? if your bible says that, then science contradicts it. If you believe matter can be created then you are opposing science!.

You contact the dead yet deny the existence of God as a Spirit?

There is evidence for spirits, but not the christian god. Christian god is based on faith, spirits have been seen and experienced. peeps on this forum have already admitted the christian god is not omnipresent and that he is outside of time and space, if the Christian god is a spirit, then it would have to be a finite one and not omnipresent as he apparently was a man called jesus (though some christians have rejected that jesus was god), christianity rejects the position that spirits exist, according to most christians this is "illusion" brought about by satan, especially anyone trying to contact a spirit was hung, yes there also 1000s of reports of people drowned for dabbling in spirit communication in medieval times, this is what Christians did. i don't understand christianity either, if jesus died, then why does this so called "sin" still about today?

Look at science, western and eastern and tell me that men do not have a spirit.

i dont know if this is some kind of personal attack, but if you had read atleast 4 of my other posts, you would of seen where i admitted i have accept the existence of spirits. Alfred Russel Wallace came to believe in spirits he did not like christianity and so did the atheist Robert Owen, you do not need to be religious or believe in the christian god to have accept or have experiences with spirits.

Christians do not accept the existence of "Chi" "prana" etc. These ideas come from the school of Vedantic thought, these schools of thought do not believe in a creator god, they are monistic, god is seen as everything, they argue for eternal cosmos all of this is in opposition to christianity. Young earth creationists and most Christians for that matter are dualists, they accept the existence of both matter and a seperate deity (god). Eastern medicine is in opposition to anything found in the Bible.

God is a Spirit. We must worship Him in Spirit. I know where He is because He has shown me. He has shown me because I accepted His Son.

sorry... but just more words. Until you give up dogmatic religion and free yourself from that mindset you will just stay blinded to spirituality. spirituality is not about what is found in any religious book, it is about experience not belief.

i dont know if this is some kind of personal attack, but if you had read atleast 4 of my other posts, you would of seen where i admitted i have accept the existence of spirits. Alfred Russel Wallace came to believe in spirits he did not like christianity and so did the atheist Robert Owen, you do not need to be religious or believe in the christian god to have accept or have experiences with spirits.

That's just it. Your posts seem to contradict eachother.

1. The universe is eternal and this is why the christian god does most likely not exist - do you want to know why this is not faith??? this is becuase Plasma is almost everywhere. At least ninety-nine percent of the known universe is, in fact, matter in its plasma state! plasma is a state of matter very similar to gas - it can neither be created nor destroyed!! this is why the universe was never created!! and why there was no start called the big bang. did the christian god create the universe?? if your bible says that, then science contradicts it. If you believe matter can be created then you are opposing science!

God is a Spirit and He is eternal, so I don't see what your big deal is. In addition, personally, I think that energy can be converted into matter.

There is evidence for spirits, but not the christian god. Christian god is based on faith, spirits have been seen and experienced. peeps on this forum have already admitted the christian god is not omnipresent and that he is outside of time and space, if the Christian god is a spirit, then it would have to be a finite one and not omnipresent as he apparently was a man called jesus (though some christians have rejected that jesus was god), christianity rejects the position that spirits exist, according to most christians this is "illusion" brought about by satan, especially anyone trying to contact a spirit was hung, yes there also 1000s of reports of people drowned for dabbling in spirit communication in medieval times, this is what Christians did. i don't understand christianity either, if jesus died, then why does this so called "sin" still about today?

God can be in more than one place at a time, thus he could send Himself to us in the form of a man and still be a Spirit in other places.

I don't agree with your statement that Christianity rejects that spirits exist. At all.

Jesus died to save us from our sins and to remove the fear of death, but the work of removing sin is not complete. There are scriptures that speak of a gradual change in Christians, not an instantaneous one... not yet.

Well, I am a Christian, so think again. Just a note: Believing that this Chi that they speak of exists is different than believing everything else they say and do.

Spirituality is about experience.

Now that I can agree with!! Religion based on nothing but words does very little for us and is not pleasing to God. That is why I am determined to be non-denominational. We must free ourselves from a dogmatic mind-set and follow God's lead. Once again, "God is a Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit"!

The christian god, is just one idea of another million, also using the example that God is a spirit from a Biblical sense does not really add up, if God really was an eternal spirit then why would he place himself in a finite man named Jesus. Why not embrace the islamic, Hindu or BahÃƒÂ¡'ÃƒÂ­? It's just ideas on paper, not something which can be proven. if you want to believe then go ahead, but why moan at a darwinst, you guys are no different than eachother. Theres more evidence for aliens existing than the christian god, nobody has ever seen the christian god, yet people have seen aliens!!

Jesus died to save us from our sins and to remove the fear of death, but the work of removing sin is not complete. There are scriptures that speak of a gradual change in Christians, not an instantaneous one... not yet.

just all belief from a book, you may aswell read origin of the species with it. statements in there which can never been confirmed.

"God is a Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit"!

if god is spirit and you want to worship it then why do you need a dogmatic religion, a book of beliefs on paper? doesnt add up.

The christian god, is just one idea of another million, also using the example that God is a spirit from a Biblical sense does not really add up, if God really was an eternal spirit then why would he place himself in a finite man named Jesus. Why not embrace the islamic, Hindu or Bahá'í? It's just ideas on paper, not something which can be proven. if you want to believe then go ahead, but why moan at a darwinst, you guys are no different than eachother. Theres more evidence for aliens existing than the christian god, nobody has ever seen the christian god, yet people have seen aliens!!

just all belief from a book, you may aswell read origin of the species with it. statements in there which can never been confirmed.

if god is spirit and you want to worship it then why do you need a dogmatic religion, a book of beliefs on paper? doesnt add up.

Just like the idea of evolution originated in pagan religion.

1) Egyptian religious belief is that man can from animals. This is why a lot of the paintings on their walls were of half human half animals (macro-evolution).2) The race that you were back in those times determined what animal you came from and what status you held in life. Which is based in racism which evolution can be traced to and was used to promote it.3) The Egyptian pagan religions of that time believed that all life came from the slime that existed around the Nile river. Which was there form of the primordial soup in the abiogenesis process.4) The priest of these religions practice the dark arts of magic and used that to get what they wanted and to serve their Pharaoh. There art was called the sciences, how ironic.5) Darwin had a degree in theology which means he had to learn what other religions believed and taught. Which also means he knew about the Egyptian pagan religions. Which anyone can come to the conclusion to connect the dots that Darwin took a Egyptian pagan religion, repackaged it, and sold it as science. Even though science (religion) from back then already believed what he was selling. Ironic that evolution is just repackage pagan religion.6) Don't think that Darwin would take idea from other sources and claim them as his own (plagiarism)? Darwin took many ideas from his grandfather's book called Zoonomia, The laws of organic life. And never ever gave any credit to his grandfather. Even the wikipedia acknowledges what Darwin did in a round about way by saying this:

Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life (1794) is a two-volume medical work by Erasmus Darwin dealing with pathology, anatomy, psychology, and the functioning of the body. The book incorporates early ideas relating to the theory of evolution that were later more fully developed by his grandson, Charles Darwin.Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonomia

Darwin fully developing his grandfather's ideas without giving him credit is just a polite way of saying Darwin plagiarized. Why is this important? Because if Darwin is using ideas from his grandfather's work without credit given, what's going to stop him from using ideas from his education in theology as well? Plagiarizers cannot help but to plagiarize because they cannot come up with an original idea themselves. So they work off ideas from others and claim them as their own. Would it be so hard to give his grandfather credit, or was it that Darwin did not want to share the credit with anyone? Plagiarists want all the credit and the spotlight.

Also in another thread you started you tried to make out religion as the reason for all things wrong with the world. Well I thought you should know that science is connected to more bad things then religion has ever been. And the proof of that is in this post: http://www.evolution...indpost&p=76841

You can make a person believe almost anything is good if you filter out all that is bad. I have no problem admitting to the bad things that may have been done in the past by Christians. But the thing to see is that if you can admit to past history of bad things from your side, or will you try to justify them? And will you admit or deny evolution's connection to pagan religion on several levels? Was it Darwin or Egyptian religion that had the ideas for evolution first?

Egyptian religious belief is that man can from animals. This is why a lot of the paintings on their walls were of half human half animals (macro-evolution).

Yes Egyptian is a polytheistic religion which pre-dates Christianity. But either way, the ancient Egyptians actually held close to their creation stories, but yes some of their stories say humans came from water creatures, but the process was guided by the gods, so this is theistic evolution.

You may not know this, but the Egyptian God Horus is considered by some scholars to actually be Jesus and that the bible just copied earlier Egyptian religion, look at horus and Jesus, they were both born by virgin births on December 25 and died by crucifixion and were resurrected three days later. Not saying that this is the truth of the matter, but most likely the bible took ideas from other religions.

Egyptian religious belief is that man came from animals. This is why a lot of the paintings on their walls were of half human half animals.

half human, half animals do exist to ancient religions!! one of the oldest religions in the world hinduism depicts half ape men 3 million years go walking on earth but co existing with human. whats wrong with that?

The Egyptian pagan religions of that time believed that all life came from the slime that existed around the Nile river. Which was there form of the primordial soup in the abiogenesis process

No it's not abiogenesis because according to their story various gods were involved with the process, similar stories are found in other religions. the primordial soup is also old news, as far as i know little scientists today support it!!

Which is based in racism which evolution can be traced to and was used to promote it.

look up the christian creationists Josiah Clark Nott, and Louis Agassiz, both claimed god's chosen perfect race is white, becuase adam was a white man from the bible and the bible is a white mans book. you see racialism is found in christianity also. the connection between evolution and racism is not that much!!, darwin was a strict monogenist argueing that all races were the same species, related and came from the same location (similar to young earth creationism) he spent his time argueing against nott and agassiz calling their work "racist" as those authors had claimed each race had a seperate origin. darwin spent his time argueing for the unity of the races it looks like the YECS and darwin have alot in common.!!

Darwin had a degree in theology which means he had to learn what other religions believed and taught. Which also means he knew about the Egyptian pagan religions. Which anyone can come to the conclusion to connect the dots that Darwin took a Egyptian pagan religion, repackaged it, and sold it as science. Even though science (religion) from back then already believed what he was selling. Ironic that evolution is just repackage pagan religion.

This is a rather weird conspiracy claim with no evidence. If you want to get closer to the truth of the matter you need to look at his own letters , you will see that Darwin stole ideas from many scientists, he stole his concept of natural selection from a man called patrick matthews a farmer and edward blyth, he admitted in private letters that he had read both of their works, (blyth was a creationist). Darwin also stealing ideas from Lamarck and the early work of Alfred Wallace. There is plagiarism but not from egyptian religion. Darwin in letters to Asa grey admitted that he was a Christian theist. Darwin was a Christian. Darwinism is indeed religion!!

Yes Egyptian is a polytheistic religion which pre-dates Christianity. But either way, the ancient Egyptians actually held close to their creation stories, but yes some of their stories say humans came from water creatures, but the process was guided by the gods, so this is theistic evolution.

Predates? Creation and Genesis means the beginning. So how does one creation predate another?

And as far as process being guided by gods in the Egyptian religion being theistic evolution, all Darwin had to do was remove the god guided process and you have naturalistic atheistic origins. He had to make it somewhat different so that there could always be an explanation.

You may not know this, but the Egyptian God Horus is considered by some scholars to actually be Jesus and that the bible just copied earlier Egyptian religion, look at horus and Jesus, they were both born by virgin births on December 25 and died by crucifixion and were resurrected three days later. Not saying that this is the truth of the matter, but most likely the bible took ideas from other religions.

More like the other way around but I can see by your bias thinking that only one way will work. And that way is anything that discredits Christianity. I find it ironic that most all atheists can never figure out what the driving force is of their hatred of one religion above all others. A force that drives you to waste time surfing the web trying to discredit what you claim does not exist. I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't go join a Aghost group. I don't go putting up forums blogs and websites trying to discredit what I claim does not exist. I don;t write books, give lectures, etc... because I "truly" believe ghost don't exist so I know to do such things is a waste of my time and money.

Question: Since you are basically against all gods. Do you put as much effort into discrediting Allah, or any other religion? Why is it that 99% of an atheist's time being an atheist applies to Christianity? Have you ever thought that the driving force that controls what you do knows which religion is real and does not drive you to go after the ones that are not? Think about it. if Satan exists and is using that atheist movement to get rid of the real God, would he waste all his time and effort on the fakes ones which are already sending everyone involved to Hell?

The logic:1) The fake religions keep people from finding the true God, so they do Satan's work for him.2) Why go after the fake religions when Satan would be hurting himself?3) In fact why don;t you show us where you post on other forums and blogs about other god's you disagree with to let us see where you could prove us all wrong? You cannot do it because the force that drives you and others like you won;t let you. Because if there was no driving force, then each religion would be attack and discredited with the same effort as any other. But let's be honest. the ratio is more like 99% effort against Christians, and 1% spread out among all other religions. If I am wrong, prove it.

half human, half animals do exist to ancient religions!! one of the oldest religions in the world hinduism depicts half ape men 3 million years go walking on earth but co existing with human. whats wrong with that?

Shows Darwin plagiarized by withholding this information.

No it's not abiogenesis because according to their story various gods were involved with the process, similar stories are found in other religions. the primordial soup is also old news, as far as i know little scientists today support it!!

Yep, the religion connection to evolution just keeps adding up. So in your attempt to justify this you are in agreement with me.

look up the christian creationists Josiah Clark Nott, and Louis Agassiz, both claimed god's chosen perfect race is white, becuase adam was a white man from the bible and the bible is a white mans book. you see racialism is found in christianity also. the connection between evolution and racism is not that much!!, darwin was a strict monogenist argueing that all races were the same species, related and came from the same location (similar to young earth creationism) he spent his time argueing against nott and agassiz calling their work "racist" as those authors had claimed each race had a seperate origin. darwin spent his time argueing for the unity of the races it looks like the YECS and darwin have alot in common.!!

Racism is man based. And how do you know Adam and Eve were white? Since the Jewish people are God's chosen I can conclude that Adam and Eve were Jewish. And because Jesus was born unto a Jewish mother it is also easy to conclude that Christ is Jewish as well. I don;t see anything common. Yec's are what atheistic evolutionists came after more than any other creation belief. That does not = being common.

This is a rather weird conspiracy claim with no evidence. If you want to get closer to the truth of the matter you need to look at his own letters , you will see that Darwin stole ideas from many scientists, he stole his concept of natural selection from a man called patrick matthews a farmer and edward blyth, he admitted in private letters that he had read both of their works, (blyth was a creationist). Darwin also stealing ideas from Lamarck and the early work of Alfred Wallace. There is plagiarism but not from egyptian religion. Darwin in letters to Asa grey admitted that he was a Christian theist. Darwin was a Christian. Darwinism is indeed religion!!

So in your attempt to again justify wrong doing we agree again. As far as no evidence goes... Because of what Darwin did using other people's ideas etc... You could never prove in a court of law that he did not repackage the Egyptian belief and called it evolution. Why? When you apply the scales that determine what was done. Then list all that Darwin plagiarized on one side compared to what is in question about being plagiarized. The scales would tip towards that he did use the Egyptian religion and repackaged it. Why?

1) Not only did he continually use other people's ideas,2) But he has a theology connection that would have taught him the "Egyptian" religion.

So number one shows he has the ability to plagiarize in which is confirmed on several occasions. The other shows that he had been exposed to the knowledge of the Egyptian religion. And his result of what he wrote more than confirms this. So yes evolution is a religion so we agree. Unless you trick of the use of words was to start a semantics debate because you said Darwinism.

I am not doing this challenge it says you have to make a youtube video of yourself and paste it online, well I do not have a camera or youtube account.

The same excuse used by so many. So nobody you know has a camera you could borrow, and there is no way that you know how to sign up on youtube? Lame.

You seem to think people are scared of what is written in the bible, i have already told you I have never read the bible it does not interest me, and from what I have seen and heard most of the bible is most likely taken from other sources, i do not consider it to be divine or complete historic truth of life on earth or "gods word". if any sect of christianity is true it would be gnosticism which predates the bible. i do not believe a "holy spirit" exists, there is no such thing as "holy", as explained i believe people and animals have spirits, but theres no "holy spirit" from a book, the bible is based on belief, spirits not about belief. Theres also no evidence the events in the bible actually happened on earth. New agers have worked this out and they give the stuff from the bible a spiritual and not physical meaning.

If I were to debate you heavily in evolution. Then told you that I know nothing about evolution except what I read on what's against it. What kind of debate opponent would you think I am if I were that way? I have to educate myself on evolution from both angles so to understand where my debate opponent is coming from. You choose not to but disagree based strictly on other people's ideas on the subject. The thing I find ironic is that by doing this you are also using old twisted history that is basically a lie. A lie in history like the Flat Earth idea that was blamed on the Christians. The idea originated from the author of the book named: The Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The author's name was Washington Erving. Just google his name and flat earth and you can read all about it. This lie stayed in our history books for years. But since the lie was exposed it has been removed from Encyclopedias like Britannica, and several dictionaries as well.

Basically by what you said you cannot make an unbiased decision concerning Christianity. And therefore deny what you atheists call freethinking. One sided research is being bias to the emf degree.

And by the way, this is why you get frustrated easily. when you are that bias, anyone whom disagrees with you on any level you cannot stand.

You proved yourself to be just as religious (if not more) than anyone else here.

im not religious, what i explained in some of my posts on this forum - is that panspermia has evidence (yes not very much though currently! it is a rather vague hypothesis still) and that the mystery of life on earth has not been solved by science (it hasnt!), and that darwinism and creationism are both dogmatic as eachother (they are!!). I also admitted evidence for common descent is lacking (it pretty much is!!).

Panspermia has absolutely no empirical evidence (read where your argument for DNA from space was dismantled in your other thread). Now, the fact that you are once again dogmatically defending your faith statements about said pamspermia is further proof that you are a very-very religious person. You are just in denial about your religion. But donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t feel bad, most all atheists are in denial about their religion.

And to make the absurd statement that panspermia will somehow be proven right in the future is simply the optimist caving into the logical fallacy of Ã¢â‚¬ËœArgumentum ad FuturisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s basically the atheistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s prayer for a future proof for their current beliefs. Carl Sagan was full of this religion, you could even hear the TV preacher in his voice whenever he talked about the cosmos.

And I totally agree, Darwinists and Creationists are religious, just as atheists are religious. Further, anyone who attempts to say that macroevolution is a fact, then attempts to dogmatically argue from this position is just as religious.

What you are missing here, is that you have postulated nothing more than beliefs (aka FAITH) here, and then got your feelings hurt when they were exposed as nothing more than faith. You also fail to realize that no one here has a problem with your faith-statements; the only problem is when you attempt to pass your faith off as facts. Further, you can believe in your religion all you want, just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be hurt when no one wants to convert to it.

not put much (if any!) faith on this forum at all. i have admitted:

The universe is eternal and this is why the christian god does most likely not exist - do you want to know why this is not faith??? this is becuase Plasma is almost everywhere. At least ninety-nine percent of the known universe is, in fact, matter in its plasma state! plasma is a state of matter very similar to gas - it can neither be created nor destroyed!! this is why the universe was never created!! and why there was no start called the big bang. did the christian god create the universe?? if your bible says that, then science contradicts it. If you believe matter can be created then you are opposing science!.

The fact that you would even say Ã¢â‚¬Å“The universe is eternalÃ¢â‚¬Â is an absurd faith statement because ALL the empirical, logical AND rational evidence adduced points directly to a beginning to our universe. Plasma in the universe in no way supports you hypothesis of a steady state universe. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that matter is eternal either; oh, it is assumed so, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to prove that. Therefore you are simply postulating another unproven hypothesis. So here is my challenge, prove empirically that matter is infinite. Back up your assertion with empirical facts, or admit that it was nothing more than a faith statement.

And, as I stated previously, ALL the empirical science, rational and logical evidence adduced points to a beginning to the universe. The Bible points to a beginning to the universe. Therefore your absurd statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“science contradicts itÃ¢â‚¬Â is self-stultifying at best.

You contact the dead yet deny the existence of God as a Spirit?

There is evidence for spirits, but not the christian god.

This is yet another self-defeating statement. If there is evidence for spirits, then it stands to reason, that there is a high probability for the Christian God! Further there are many other lines of reasoning to support a Creator/God. For example:

The Teleological Argument for God, 1. All designs imply a designer.

2. There is great design in this universe.

3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

The first premise we know from experience. Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of the designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. It is always our expectation because we see it happening over and over. It is another way of stating the principle of causality.

Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Hoover Dam. Likewise, a thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters would never write Hamlet. But Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.

The Ontological Argument1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. 2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought." 3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. 4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). 5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought." 6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.The ontological argument for GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence is an attempt to prove GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence solely from the idea or concept of God.1 It is an attempt to prove GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence from reason alone. No appeal to the facts of experience is considered. In this way the ontological argument differs from other arguments for GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence.

The Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Note that the key phrase here is "begins to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. With the advent of the Big Bang theory pointing towards a starting point, this line of defense has become rather shaky. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?" Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

Even the First principles of Logic point to a creator God1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.

Something exists ( Example: I exist!). This is undeniable, for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence. In the very attempt to explicitly deny my existence I implicitly affirm it.

2. Being Is Being (B is B ) = The Principle of Identity.

A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not, then it would not be itself.

3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction.

Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that Ã¢â‚¬Å“opposites can both be trueÃ¢â‚¬Â does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true.

4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

Being and nonbeing are complete opposites (i.e., contradictory), and opposites cannot be the same. Therefore the only choices are being and nonbeing.

5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality.Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of Ã¢â‚¬Å“causeÃ¢â‚¬Â implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another thing. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing! The statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nonbeing cannot produce beingÃ¢â‚¬Â is undeniable. The very concept of Ã¢â‚¬Å“produceÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“causeÃ¢â‚¬Â implies something exists to cause or produce the being produced. To deny that relationship of cause to effect is to say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nothing is somethingÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nonbeing is being,Ã¢â‚¬Â which is nonsense.

If something cannot be caused by nothing, neither can anything be caused by what could be nothing, namely, a contingent being. For that which could be nothing does not account for its own existence! And that which cannot account for even its own existence cannot account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it cannot be that on which something else depends for its being. Therefore, one contingent being cannot be the unlimate cause for other contingent beings.

7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.

Absolutely nothing cannot cause something. Neither can one contingent kind (mode) of being cause another contingent being. So, if anything comes to be, it must be caused by a Necessary Being.

A Necessary Being is by definition a mode (kind) of being that cannot not be. That is, by its very mode (modality), it must be. It cannot come to be or cease to be. But to be caused means to come to be. Therefore, a Necessary Being cannot be caused. For what comes to be is not necessary.

9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.

All contingent beings need (MUST HAVE) a cause. For a contingent being is something that is but could NOT be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not account for its own existence. That is, in itself there is no basis explaining why it exists rather than does not exist. It literally has nothing (nonbeing) to ground it. But nonbeing cannot ground or cause anything. Only something can cause or produce something.

The Principle of Existential Necessity follows from two other Principles: the Principle of Existence (no. 1) and the Principle of Causality (no. 5).Since something undeniably exists (no. 1), either it is - a. all contingent or b. all necessary or c. some is necessary and some is contingent.

But both "b." and "c." acknowledge a Necessary Being, and "a." is logically impossible, being contrary to the self-evident principle no. 5. For if all being(s) is (are) contingent, then it is possible for all being(s) not to exist. That is, a state of total nothingness is possible. But something now undeniably exists (e.g., I do), as was demonstrated in premise no. 1. And nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). Therefore, it is not possible (i.e., it is impossible) for there to have been a state of total nothingness. But if it is impossible for nothing to exist (since something does exist), then something necessarily exists (i.e., a Necessary Being does exist).

Christian god is based on faith, spirits have been seen and experienced.

Absolutely everhting you've said so far has been faith based!

Anyway: Have you ever seen a spirit? And can you provide empirical evidence for any spirits?

I ask the above, because you are making a rather bold statement, and that statement is not that some people have seen and experiences spirits, but rather that only God is taken on faith, but your spirits are not. This is a self-contradictory statement at best. Why? Because if there are spirits, and God is a Spirit, than there can be a God spirit as well. Therefor your statement fails its own premise

Further, I know of many-many Christians who have experiences the Holy Spirit (including myself). And the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible (NT) is the third personage of God. Therefore your hypothesis fails again.

Would you like to try for a third strike?

peeps on this forum have already admitted the christian god is not omnipresent and that he is outside of time and space, if the Christian god is a spirit, then it would have to be a finite one and not omnipresent as he apparently was a man called jesus (though some christians have rejected that jesus was god), christianity rejects the position that spirits exist, according to most christians this is "illusion" brought about by satan, especially anyone trying to contact a spirit was hung, yes there also 1000s of reports of people drowned for dabbling in spirit communication in medieval times, this is what Christians did. i don't understand christianity either, if jesus died, then why does this so called "sin" still about today?

That is incorrect, and a misunderstanding on your part. And if you went back to that thread, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d see where I corrected your misunderstanding. Instead, you are simply attempting to spread the same misunderstanding here.

christianity rejects the position that spirits exist, according to most christians this is "illusion" brought about by satan,

Christianity believes that spirits are real. These passages in the Christian Bible do not leave any doubt:

1 Peter 3:18 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

1 John 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,

Acts 19:13-16 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Matthew 12:43-45 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”

Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”

Acts 16:16-18 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. She followed Paul and us, crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

1 John 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Matthew 8: 28 When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region. See also Mark 5:9,10 and Luke 8:30

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It's something you can do that will ensure that you will never be saved. If you are so sure of yourself, you should not have any problems meeting the challenge. I'll give you 7 days to respond. If not I will delete this thread and your account.

Let me be absolutely clear on what you have proposed here. You are encouraging shadow to perpetrate an act that will lead to his eternal damnation according to Biblical authority. Have I understood you correctly?

Let me be absolutely clear on what you have proposed here. You are encouraging shadow to perpetrate an act that will lead to his eternal damnation according to Biblical authority. Have I understood you correctly?

Yes. Since he said he would never want to be a Christian, what difference does it make? He would be damned if he did, and damned if he did not. He basically proved he was just spouting off by coming up with excuses what he could not do it.

You see someone who already hates God and His Son to the point they would do the challenge, there is no chance for them to be saved. Nothing lost nothing gained. If he could not do it I wanted him to see that what he was trying to convince himself of, by spouting off, was not true. To basically plant a seed of thought to make him ponder why he could not do it. And to maybe also make him look into what he could not do and make a freewill choice on what he finds instead of a choice that is based in one sided bias. Now I'm not saying he is bias on purpose, what I am saying is that the way he has sought to find truth has made his conclusion bias. So he needs to search it out more from non-bias sources so he can make a reasonable freewill choice that is not hindered by other people's opinion.

There are many atheists that have gone down this path. One where they accepted someone's like minded opinion on a subject that if true will effect them for an eternity.

I did not hold a gun to Shadows head and try to make him do this. The reason he could not is because in his heart he knows that there could be a possibility that God exists. A person cannot betray his own heart.

I am quite simply appalled by your response. You suggest part of your motivation was to try to get Shadow to entertain an element of doubt about his beliefs. All well and good, but the fact remains that you encouraged him to commit an act which you believe would lead to his irrevocable damnation. I am close to speechless that you could display so much disdain for a fellow human. In my view that was an unethical and disgusting act. From Shadow's posts, that I have read, he did not appear to be a very pleasant person, but that you could happily see him consigned to hellfire for eternity blows my mind.

I am quite simply appalled by your response. You suggest part of your motivation was to try to get Shadow to entertain an element of doubt about his beliefs. All well and good, but the fact remains that you encouraged him to commit an act which you believe would lead to his irrevocable damnation. I am close to speechless that you could display so much disdain for a fellow human. In my view that was an unethical and disgusting act. From Shadow's posts, that I have read, he did not appear to be a very pleasant person, but that you could happily see him consigned to hellfire for eternity blows my mind.

Then you don't know much about theology. The blasphemy challenge is actually a scam for several reasons:

1) They tell you to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The Bible makes it clear it's the Holy Ghost that is unforgivable even though some later versions omit the Holy ghost. Why is that important? The Holy Spirit is a representation of God the Father who was head of the "old covenant". Which is not in effect. The Holy Ghost is a representation of Jesus. And Jesus is the head of the current covenant. So when the blasphemy challenge people blaspheme the Holy Spirit, they blaspheme something that is not over the current covenant so therefore means exactly nothing.

So basically all those people who have already gone to that site and did what they were told were sold a bill of goods that is not even being done right. But being done right also only applies to certain people which is discussed in the next point...

2) For there to be any sin that can block the salvation of the "unsaved sinner" makes sin more powerful then the shed blood of Christ. It also gives Satan a tool to block salvation. So the unforgivable sin of blasphemy only applies to the saved. To say other wise is to say that what Christ did on the cross cannot forgive all sin for the unsaved and therefore some will be damned for hell no matter what they do. That actually hedges on what Calvinists believe about predestination. They believe that some people are born to go to Hell, while other are born to go to Heaven and there is nothing that can be done because they were predestined. Which by the way is wrong.

3) And the other part that makes this wrong is using Biblical logic. A unsaved sinner is already damned. So what happens when they commit this sin, do they become double damned? You see that does not even make sense.

So what this basically means is that:

1) They blaspheme the wrong person.2) Only the saved can do this to where it counts.3) Because if the unsaved could do this then what Christ did on the cross was not good enough to save them. And Satan has a tool that is stronger than salvation by being able to block it before it is even given.

So for this to work a person who is "still a Christian", goes to that site and blasphemes the Holy Ghost not the Holy Spirit. All atheists who did this were duped because the person who runs and owns that site did not know enough about theology to get it right. And even then it does not apply to one group of people (atheists) which was the group he wanted.

Verses for blaspheming: mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

lk 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

A lot of the later versions omit the Holy ghost and replace that with Holy Spirit. The KJV makes a distinction because they are not one in the same person as some will claim or imply. The KJV never says once that blaspheming that Holy Spirit is unforgivable, only the Holy ghost.

But I do understand you being appalled. I knew some would not knowing the truth of the matter.

Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.

Age: 27

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Mississippi

Posted 23 November 2011 - 10:51 AM

Hi Shadow. Here is one of my favorite quotes concerning the originality and veracity of the Bible.

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.Ã¢â‚¬Â

I'd be happy to speak with you in private sometime and share evidence for the Bible's historicity. I firmly believe the evidence speaks for itself, and you seem like an intelligent guy who's willing to give it a fair hearing. My PM box is open, mate.